Bertvan:
>>It is
>> true that many religious people paint their God in pretty human
>> terms, but agnostics can consider nature the result of an
>> intelligent, rational design without even speculating about the
>> nature of any designer.
Ted:
> But why not speculate? If design can infer a designer, why can't
>the nature of the design infer the nature of the designer?
Bertvan:
Hi Ted, I wouldn't discourage anyone else from speculating about anything.
It is just not a speculation that interests me. IMHO we don't yet know
enough about the nature of the design to say much about the about nature of
the designer. (Some of us have been too busy arguing that design couldn't
possibly exist. :-))
Ted:
> The inference that I would get from the "design" in nature is
>that the designer has the same morals as nature itself; which
>makes it rather simpler, again, to posit nature as the designer
>rather than another entity for which there is no other evidence.
Bertvan:
I have no objection to suggesting "nature" as the designer (whatever "nature"
is). However I have a hard time thinking of anything resulting from "random
mutation and natural selection" as designed. I'm forced to seek more
rational mechanisms.
Ted:
> Further, morality assumes a social organism of some type, so
> the only way a postulated intelligence could be a-moral would
> be if it were the only one of its kind, which seems farfetched.
> For morality to have logical appeal, it must be based on values
> which transcend mere physical or genetic appearance -- probably
>consciousness or the ability to feel pain. An intelligence
>would be able to determine trivially that many organisms here
> on earth are capable of this (I don't think it all unlikely that
>early humans, such as Neandertals, for example, experienced
>consciousness much like we do today). Thus, I find it most
>likely that, if an intelligence did exist, it would regard the
>the process we observe in Earth's history as a-moral and would
>not incorporate it for its own ends.
> Now, you seem to say that this sort of reasoning is out-of-bounds
>or off-limits. Why?
Bertvan:
I would consider the possibility of the "designer" being an "organism"
extremely naive. I can't imagine what morality has to do with design. You
do a lot of speculating and make a lot of assumptions about the nature of
morality about which I have no opinions. Surely your aren't suggesting that
intelligence is somehow tied to morality? The list of intelligent, but
immoral humans is extensive. And if you grant some degree of intelligence to
other mammals, are you suggesting their intelligence is somehow tied to
morality? I don't consider such speculation "out-of-bounds", just not very
fruitful.
Ted:
>The goal of morality has always been objective at its roots:
> maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the individuals
> that make up society. We don't need to go into the subjective
> nature of morality at all for this discussion. Pain and
>pleasure are pretty obvious to any sentient creature.
Bertvan:
Without going into the nature of morality, you state that morality is
"maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain"? I think even the most na•ve
religion defines morality as something more than that.
Ted:
> As I reasoned above, it seems most likely that intelligence
>should tend to avoid unnecessary suffering.
Bertvan:
Some people regard certain suffering as justifying pain. However, I'm still
puzzled by your obsession with morality. Is the following your position:
Since you see morality tied to intelligence (which I don't), and since
suffering exists, nature isn't moral, and therefore can't be the result of a
rational design?
Ted:
> I don't believe I proposed that an absence of suffering
> was ever possible; merely, that with intelligence comes
> the desire and the ability to minimize suffering in wider and
>wider circles. You can observe this trend in the human race.
Bertvan:
Again, I don't know anyone who suggests the intelligence in nature is mere
human intelligence.
Ted:
> Actually, in this instance, I believe it doesn't stop with
> disappointment, it continues to an argument that demonstrates
> that intelligence without morality is really a bit far-fetched.
> But again, I don't agree that anyone has decreed that teleology,
> in theory, does not exist; only that there is no evidence in
> nature that requires an ID explanation-- just like a geologist
> might say about the Grand Canyon.
Bertvan:
Those who see no evidence for teleology in nature will continue to see no
need for an ID explanation. Those who do see evidence for teleology will
probably consider ID. Is not seeing evidence of teleology in nature
obligatory to being a scientist?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 18 2000 - 15:45:12 EDT